. . . they get better drugs.
Heath Ledger's death has been ruled an accident, "the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam, and doxylamine." That's a pretty impressive list for a 28-year-old with a successful career in a demanding job.
I prefer a cheekie wee Beaujolais, myself.
I prefer a cheekie wee Beaujolais, myself.
Actually, they're pretty common drugs each, and all generic and fairly cheap at this point. But all of them? All of them are pretty commonly abused.
Oxycodone - Painkiller. Double it with Tylenol to produce Percocet, with aspirin to produce Percodan.
Hydrocodone - aka Vicodin, painkiller and cough medicine, also acts as sedative
Diazepam - aka Valium
Temazepam - sleep medicine
Alprazolam - aka Xanax, depression and anxiety
Doxylamine - Unisom, also part of the drug cocktail that is Nyquil. Sleep medicine that also acts as an antihistamine.
No doctor *should* prescribe all of those to the same person at the same time, but there are lots of ways to get them. And to accidentally take all of them, and not think that there's a risk in taking that many sedatives at once? Suspicious.
Cut that list in about half, mix in a beer and you have yourself one hell of a Saturday night. Everything but the oxy and vikes causes does a number on the memory, especially the Xanax and sleeping pills, so an accidental overdose seems quite likely
a proxy story for the mortgage brokers..
So I guess when you sold your soul you decided to do it on a payment plan? Would that explain why you continue to descend further and further into the realm of heartlessness?
My God woman, have you not a mirror?
And now topped off with a formaldedhyde chaser.
Haven't you disgraced this man enough on your blog?
Why rub it in?
Here, Nutella: a soap box and a street corner. Have fun working whatever that is out of your system.
Meanwhile, for those of us who did not know Heath Ledger and are therefore free to discuss this event in reasonably dispassionate terms...that is a truly amazing list of things for one person to have in their system. But OTOH, in the good old days when the rich and famous couldn't deal with the stress, they achieved the trick with cocaine and alcohol. So I guess this is just a mildly more exotic means to the same ends, except this time around, it was fatal.
Oh, and Deebledoor: The man disgraced himself in this matter. A plain observation of that fact does not shift the responsibility to the party making the observation.
you also forgot to mention that the list of drugs you rattled off are technical terms for, valium, xanax, and household sleep aids.
that information could be found in.....the article!
I'd never heard of him before either, anony-mouse.
I'd never heard of him before either, anony-mouse.
I still have doubts about my ability to pick him out of a lineup.
That said, he's survived by a toddler, which really is sad. I bought my son his first lacrosse stick this weekend, so that aspect of the matter does bother me.
This sort of accidental mixing of drugs with overlapping effects is exactly why I use ONE pharmacist even though I have several doctors (one internist and three specialists).
BTW, the only movie I saw Heath Ledger is was that Julia Stiles flick called something like 10 Things I Hate About You. I sometimes wondered what happened to him.
This sort of accidental mixing of drugs with overlapping effects is exactly why I use ONE pharmacist even though I have several doctors (one internist and three specialists).
BTW, the only movie I saw Heath Ledger is was that Julia Stiles flick called something like 10 Things I Hate About You. I sometimes wondered what happened to him.
You people don't know who Heath Ledger was? Have you been living in a cave since 2005? BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!!! Whether you saw it or not, you must have heard some sort of pop cultural reference to it at some point! I guess you're libertarian economics mind wasn't curious enough to find out a) who was starring in it or b) why everyone was talking about it.
Damn people, but down Reason and The Economist and pick up a copy of PEOPLE once in a while!
Why would I be curious to know anything about a movie which, based on its promotional materials, looked intensely and unusually boring, and based upon what "everyone was talking about," appeared to be more dreary Hollywood PC-ism?
I can't even name the stars of movies I like.
Rob-
Brokeback Mountain 'appeared to be more dreary Hollywood PC-ism'? How? Because it depicted a gay couple as, oh jeez, human, rather than a caricature?
No, because it glorified marital infidelity in the name of "love."
Just imagine the antibiotics and antidepressants that fill the McArdle medicine cabinet.
And she has neither a sucessful career nor a demanding job.
Rob-
That is a completely asinine way of interpreting that movie. It was set in rural west during the 1960s, and made the point that being gay then and there was a horrible, and ultimately deadly, position to be in. It didn't glorify marital infedility--it glorified love, and being honest with oneself. The enemy was the bigoted culture that wanted to suppress and kill that love and truth.
So, the wife and kiddies were just "collateral damage," eh?
That is a completely asinine way of interpreting that movie
I'm not interpreting the movie, as I said, I'm interpreting what "everybody was talking about."
It didn't glorify marital infedility--it glorified love, and being honest with oneself.
But not, apparently, being honest with one's spouse, or with the God before whom one had voluntarily taken the vow to "forsake all others." As in, you know, all others.
The enemy was the bigoted culture that wanted to suppress and kill that love and truth.
And this message, I'm sure we all agree, is not the slightest bit PC. Not at all.
But thank you, your entire comment would be exactly the sort of thing that "everyone" was saying that led me to my conclusion. The only thing missing is praise for the "courage" required to make a film that everyone the director, producers, and writer will ever meet socially will praise to the heavens. It must be terrifying to face a reaction.
I'm sure it did suck to be gay in the rural west in the 1960's, or for that matter in 2008. This truth doesn't mean I find the subject interesting.
I wonder why that particular mix? Did he just forget he had already taken something, or was he self-medicating, trying to counteract side-effects of something he had already taken? Looks like a lot of painkillers and tranquilizers.
Poor man. I'm really sorry that this happened to him and his family. R.I.P.
"Here, Nutella: a soap box and a street corner. Have fun working whatever that is out of your system."
Anony-mouse:
Here, a brain and a heart to see just how fucked up it is that Megan is making cracks and wild speculations about a man-she's-never-met's death for absolutely no good reason. Not to mention, as other commenters have pointed out, that the only "point" she makes is completely false because all of those are common drugs. I suffer from chronic pain and have 3 of those in my pocket right now. A fourth is sold OTC. I could get the other two rather easily if I were so inclined, I'm sure.
Did you have a separate deal, or was did you and Megan go halfsies on your souls?
Please don't tell anyone (especially the cool crowd) that I didn't know who the most recent cool actor was - if they find out, they won't sign my yearbook.
Of course, in another view, pop icons are here today and gone tomorrow, or, in Ledger's case, here yesterday and gone today.
PS: Heath, tell Anna Nicole we said, "Hey."
Occam, you dipshit, you can't have it both ways. Either you claim not to care about something so don't pay attention and STFU, or you learn about it and then give your opinion. You don't get to say you don't care and totally ignore something and then also give you uniformed opinion based on bias and hearsay.
OK, catch me up with a crash course in pop culture. Was Ledger the pitcher or the catcher?
Ya know conservatives, Heath Ledger only played a gay character. He wasn't actually gay, so you shouldn't have reason to hate him so much.
Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? I didn't offer any opinion on the movie. That was Rob. I just said I'd never heard of him, which was true.
You don't get to say you don't care and totally ignore something and then also give you uniformed opinion based on bias and hearsay.
You must be new to blogging.
I don't hate him. I'd never seen him, nor heard of him. He was less significant to me than (ahem) some on this board. At least I've heard of them, for better or worse.
Just curious, for anyone medically inclined here; What does such a combination of drugs do to your body that actually kills you? Respiratory failure?
I didn't offer any opinion on the movie. That was Rob.
I didn't offer an opinion on the movie either; I gave my opinion on the depiction of the movie in both its own promotional materials and in the breathless praise it received from RICKM, who appears to have been ghostwriting pretty much all the commentary I read when it came out. Based on those two, it looked terrible.
Any homophobia or Heathophobia imputed to me is false.
NutellaonTouché wrote: Here, a brain and a heart to see just how @#$%GERBIL^&*! up it is that Megan is making cracks and wild speculations about a man-she's-never-met's death for absolutely no good reason.
As compared to yourself, who is rushing to defend him for...?
Not to mention, as other commenters have pointed out, that the only "point" she makes is completely false because all of those are common drugs. I suffer from chronic pain and have 3 of those in my pocket right now. A fourth is sold OTC. I could get the other two rather easily if I were so inclined, I'm sure.
Here's the question: Did you consult your doctor and pharmacist to make sure that it was probably safe to mix those, and do you carefully follow the dosage recommendations? Because the available info so far seems to indicate that this guy didn't. Also worth noting that yours is a special case for possessing that particular drug cocktail; lots of people who are not you possess them for far lesser maladies, which was kind of the underlying point.
Did you have a separate deal, or was did you and Megan go halfsies on your souls?
Separate. The pricing tier was better. And to repeat something I said in MM's previous post on the Ledger Affair: A blog author cannot reasonably anticipate, and tiptoe about, the unique and peculiar circumstances of every person who might stop by to read said entry. If this is something you cannot accommodate, find a different party to attend; there are plenty of them out there, and surely one of them is more suited to your interests.
Just as an aside I might mention that grownups generally tend to be put off by gushing celebrity worship, finding it mawkish and more than a bit pathetic.
Avidly tracking the latest doings of "Brit," "Jen," "Brad," "J-Lo" (as if these worthies wouldn't set the dogs on you if you showed at their homes), or any other denizen of tabloids giving toothy grins from racks in checkout lines is something we leave to ...well...losers.
And Ledger was not one of those people. He was an amazing talent, and his work was beginning to garner serious acclaim--just check out the trailer for the Dark Knight.
"I still have doubts about my ability to pick him out of a lineup."-Rob Lyman
Rob, I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I have seen The Patriot, which was a pretty good picture with Heath Ledger and Mel Gibson. I recommend it.
As for Rickm, he ought to calm down. I think it's sad that a man so young, with a child, was taking so many pills and killed himself (evidently unintentionally). I doubt anyone else here feels otherwise.
To respond to Megan's original post on the subject, I think the special tragic irony in the story is that he had what most people desperately want to have--money, good looks, fame--and yet he seems to have been deeply unhappy.
rwe wrote: I think it's sad that a man so young, with a child, was taking so many pills and killed himself (evidently unintentionally). I doubt anyone else here feels otherwise.
No arguments there.
Occam, you're right, my bad. I did confuse you with others.
Anony, god you really are a shit:
"As compared to yourself, who is rushing to defend him for...?"
My defense of him is based on the fact that he's a human and deserves to be treated as such. Shocking, I know, but it stems from this thing called empathy that many hold to be a valuable quantity.
"Here's the question: Did you consult your doctor and pharmacist to make sure that it was probably safe to mix those, and do you carefully follow the dosage recommendations?"
Um, at what point did i say it looked like he made informed healthcare decisions? My argument that MMs "point" of the rich having better drugs than us was stupid.
Further more, you don't know the story. As other's have stated these drugs have side effects. He may have had different ones for different reasons, taken one, then because of it's influence forgotten and taken another or something similar. He may have taken one, been in the company of friends who offered him another and in his altered state accepted etc.
There are side effects to this medications and then can result in death without the taker being an idiot. Yes, it's likely Ledger made some bad choices. It's also likely that something else happened that wasn't entire his fault.
Ambien, which is considered a much safer hypnotic than the benzodiazepenes mentioned above makes you DRIVE WHILE SLEEPING on rare occasions. It's still prescribed.
"A blog author cannot reasonably anticipate, and tiptoe about, the unique and peculiar circumstances of every person who might stop by to read said entry."
Yes, but she can act like a human and keep her self-righteous little nose out of other people's private business, especially when it concerns their death.
Also, nice job on the telling me to attend another party. MM should be surrounded by her adoring fans only and never criticized. That's usually best! I shall never read anything that I disagree with again. Brilliant advice.
and to whomever asked about the medical issue. Opiates and benzodiazepenes both act as CNS depressants so my, only moderately informed, opinion leads me to believe that, yes, they would lead to respiratory arrest.
In English: Those drugs relax muscles and stop your nerves from sending certain signals. If they do that too to large an extent, your brain stops telling your lungs to inflate and deflate and you die.
Really drug interactions are, as important events, unusual. If you take a drug, it might have 2 common side effects. Take 10 drugs, and you face the sum of the probabilities on 20 common side effects, not interactional probabilities. The combination of an opiod narcotic: hydrocodone, oxycodone (above) with a benzodiazepine: alprazolam, diazepam, temazepam (in the list above) multiplies the effect on respiratory depression. It's practically impossible to die from an overdose of benzodiazepines. Give someone Xanax (alprazolam) 2 mg 4 times a day for panic, a big dose, and add Norco 10 (10 mg hydrocodone) 4 times a day, not a big pain dose, and the respiratory drive from their brainstem may vanish, sayonara as Somerset Maugham said.
There really is no good reason for one person to be taking two different opiates and three different benzodiazepines. But that doesn't necessarily make it a suicide attempt or an ill-advised choice of recreational drugs (and hardly anybody takes benzos for recreation, anyway, especially if they've got opiates). Not everybody is going to understand that they are loading up on depressants. He might have thought that one drug was for sleep, and one drug was for anxiety, and one drug was for a toothache and a couple more were for a backache.
Of course, no ethical doctor would prescribe all of this stuff. It may simply be that the rich can afford too many doctors. Once again, not everybody realizes that giving a correct answer to that question, "Are you taking any other medications?" can be a matter of life and death.
NutellaonToast, no probs.
Too bad for Keith.
Nutella- Thanks for the info.
michael - Really drug interactions are, as important events, unusual.
I dunno about that. Outside of simple synergistic or additive effects which are very common, if one drug, lets say, interferes with the cytochrome system that breaks down drug #2 you're in line for an overdose.
And that type of thing doesn't seem to be too unusual. My dad avoids grapefruit juice and resveratrol supplements since both would interfere with the breakdown of the lipitor that he takes.
Alternately, one drug can cancel out another drug; some antibiotics render birth control pills ineffective, for instance.
Yes, but she can act like a human and keep her self-righteous little nose out of other people's private business, especially when it concerns their death.
*Shrug* It seems to me, Nutella, that you were acting pretty self-righteous and with a lack of empathy yourself. Asking someone about where they sold their soul and to "look in the mirror" does tend to come off as self-righteous. I've read several of your comments, and much of your style of arguing is not one that would be very persuasive in general.
Certainly some of your later comments are much more persuasive. Obviously, as you can tell from my earlier comment, one of the first on the post, I agree that the post was misleading by using the scientific names, and because those drugs are neither tremendously expensive (being off-patent) nor particularly hard to get (Oxycodone abuse is fairly common in poor rural areas, for example), particularly if you see multiple doctors, omit mentioning your other prescriptions, or save pills from previous prescriptions.
I still find the whole thing a bit puzzling. Yes, I'm familiar with drugs that cause memory loss and people accidentally taking an extra dose as a result, but it seems unlikely that that would make someone take a different medication. And it's not like these are really to treat very different symptoms; I find the explanations along the lines of "maybe he thought one was for a toothache and one for a backache, etc." to be just a little implausible. I think anyone who has taken both Vicodin and Oxycodone (as I have, at different times) would realize certain similarities. I still think it most likely that there's more to the story; however, I'm not really interested in prying further, either.
Megan is being openly callous in a public forum associated with a well read magazine. I think that a harsh reply, while certainly not the most mature thing to do, is deserved.
I agree with you that it's most plausible that he was being reckless, but for us to speculate is ridiculous and mean. We don't know the person or many of the details surrounding his death and there's a far from a non-zero chance that he was the victim of something other than his stupidity or hedonism. This is not the kind of thing to discuss on a public and somewhat popular forum. How would you feel if you were in the room and one of his family members came across you posting on the internet how stupid he was for doing this? (Not pointing fingers, just trying to offer some perspective.)
If I'm not persuasive, that's fine with me. I come here more for the point and laugh, lately. Megan's posts are becoming more consistently harsh, biased, poorly researched, and just plain stupid, so I snark. Maybe it's not the most mature thing in the world but we've all got our guilty pleasures. Then again, her original post was pretty snarky itself so why shouldn't my reply be?
I don't think it's all that self-righteous, though. Acting the way she's acted re: Ledger is so obviously odious that I don't think I'm trying to elevate myself by pointing out that she should be more considerate of other people's feelings. Anyone with common sense would not post something so mean spirited in the way she has. I don't think I'm implying any sort of righteousness on my own behalf by acting horrified.
In a civil society, we tend to expect things to be organized for our protection. As this example shows, however, a constitutionally protected activity is not necessarily a safe activity. I do electronic prescribing. All of a persons prescriptions are available within the database. Were I Heath's physician it would have been technically easy for me to see them when I was prescribing, however under no current circumstances can I because of HIPPA privacy restrictions. One might say a person has a legally protected right to (die of) substance abuse.
Stipulated that he died of an overdose. But I don't see how one can conclude that he was taking all of those drugs at the same time. The toxicology results reported were a binary present/not present.
I would also guess that the distal cause of death was _arrogance_. The doctor said to take no more than two of the blue ones every four hours, and he thought that meant, like the cautions on aspirin, to take four every three hours. I know people, some of them quite elderly (an oddly enough, most of them women) who are convinced they know better than their doctors, and if the doctor disagrees with them that they are quacks. I suspect very few people would accuse these ladies of some sort of abusive behavior if they were to be found dead.
Several points:
1) Heath Ledger was the Top in Brokeback Mountain. Jake Gyllenhaal was the Bottom. I didn't watch the whole movie because it was pretty dull. But I did watch the sex scenes. They were OK.
2) Ledger met his estranged wife, Michelle Williams, on the set. She played his wife in the film. They broke up this past fall, and friends say a major contributing factor was his ongoing substance abuse.
3) Ledger played the Joker in the Batman movie Dark Knight which will be released this summer. He claimed in interviews that playing such an unhinged psychopath was very disturbing and interfered with his ability to sleep, which caused him to take sleeping pills.
4) I would bet that as an actor constantly moving from one location to another Ledger wasn't consistently using one pharmacy or doctor. The circumstances of his tragic demise would suggest that it would make sense for SAG to encourage their members to use mail-order pharmacies.
It didn't glorify marital infedility--it glorified love, and being honest with oneself.
But having never seen the movie, Rob wouldn't know that. Of course, the fact that he hasn't seen the movie doesn't seem to stop him from making pronouncements about it . . .
I really don't care about celebrities and sort of skimmed this post, but I read the comments when I saw how many there were.
The original post wasn't that bad and actually could be interpreted one of several ways. Jumping all over MM as an insensitive and heartless woman who openly mocks dead people probably says something about the commenter and makes me wonder why they jumped to the interpretation they did.
Do we have a new derangement syndrome?
Avidly tracking the latest doings of "Brit," "Jen," "Brad," "J-Lo" (as if these worthies wouldn't set the dogs on you if you showed at their homes), or any other denizen of tabloids giving toothy grins from racks in checkout lines is something we leave to ...well...losers.
Really? Is avidly tracking the comings and goings of celebs any different than avidly tracking the Giants or Patriots? Or the individuals and teams in any other sport? Or the relative merits and positions of the people and parties involved in our politics?
Following the ups and downs of people, franchises and policies that have very little to do with one's individual life, seems to me to be as American as, well, Occam's Beard.
Disgraceful thread. I had a chance to talk w/ Ang Lee about him, he thought he was a great talent and a great guy. People that knew him well had great respect for him as an actor and a father.
I know people, some of them quite elderly (an oddly enough, most of them women) who are convinced they know better than their doctors, and if the doctor disagrees with them that they are quacks.
Don't you just love retail!
But having never seen the movie, Rob wouldn't know that. Of course, the fact that he hasn't seen the movie doesn't seem to stop him from making pronouncements about it . . .
Would you people stop saying I'm opining about the movie itself? I haven't seen it, I don't have an opinion on it, maybe it's the greatest film of all time.
I have an opinion on what other people said about it--the marketers and reviewers. Basically, in the process of praising it, they successfully made it look like a fine combination of obnoxious and boring, so I never saw it. OK?
If anything, his death should remind everyone seeking psychological help that they need to be more aggressive in getting the kind of help they need from psychiatrists. All too often, arrogant, overpaid prescription writers simply add more and more drugs if the current line of treatment isn't working too well. When a person has already taken a few different sleeping pills and they still can't sleep and haven't been able to for a while, it suddenly seems rational to add alcohol in the hope that it will have a synergistic effect. There might be many psychiatrists out there, but few are qualified.
Yes, self-medication happens a _lot_ as any psychiatrist (or for that matter, a regular M.D.) will tell you. It is by no means a known truth that most people who take more than they should, or in the wrong combinations are doing so in the quest for the perfect high.
That being said, _another_ psychiatrist acquaintance has told that there's simply not a lot of help you can give to most people. Some people who are depressed, clinically or not, have a very good reason to be, and no amount of treatment can make those root causes go away. The best you can do is prescribe a regimen that will deal with the pain.
I guess I'm old fashioned: when I see a man take to drink (to use a metaphor that was probably past it's currency in 1920), sometimes that's the best possible thing he can do. In children, we would call it 'crying it out of your system.'
Nope. It’s just the same. I don’t do that either, for the same reason.
Ah, that’s quite different. Politics influences the lives of all citizens, and therefore is a perfectly reasonable thing to track.
Anony, god you really are a #$@HAMSTER!^&*: My defense of him is based on the fact that he's a human and deserves to be treated as such. Shocking, I know, but it stems from this thing called empathy that many hold to be a valuable quantity.
Interestingly, in spite of the fact that I regularly impersonate a rodent for amusement, I do consider myself a human. You claim to hold fine standards and empathatic abilities in regards to the circumstances and feelings of other human beings; I believe you. Now let's see you apply them consistently.
It is easy to imagine that you have empathy when responding to the plight of a famous person you only know on the basis of their best moments, but have never known in any real capacity and therefore never had an opportunity to discover the their humanity and its weaknesses. But that's not the genuine article. The true test of empathy and compassion is the ability to show caring demeanor and patience with people you interact with regularly, such as MM or the commenters on this forum, and especially when those persons demonstrate the weaknesses and personality flaws of real humans.
I take no pleasure in this man's death, nor the shock it brings to his family and loved ones. However, since I knew neither the man nor those people, nor do I understand myself to be talking to any of them now, I am free to comment that it is really messed up for a 28yo man to have that kind of cocktail in his system. It is also fair for MM to observe that a rich, influential person would have far less difficulty accessing this kind of medicine chest.
I also don't buy your excuse that you're merely "snarking in kind" back at MM, since a lot of the alleged snark on her part seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Leading to one final and very puzzling conundrum: What in the flying flip is your problem over the past couple weeks?
"Interestingly, in spite of the fact that I regularly impersonate a rodent for amusement, I do consider myself a human. You claim to hold fine standards and empathatic abilities in regards to the circumstances and feelings of other human beings; I believe you. Now let's see you apply them consistently."
If Heath had made this post about Megan's death, I'd have posted the same response to him. People who act cruelly should have their cruel actions pointed out.
"Leading to one final and very puzzling conundrum: What in the flying flip is your problem over the past couple weeks?"
There's nothing puzzling about how insipid and cruel MM's posts have been of late, and increasingly so. My question is what's gotten into her.
You want to know why I don't empathize with Megan and some of the comment on this post? I don't empathize with cruelty.
Actually, on second though, I'll give you that anony. I shouldn't have snarked back. What I said was true but not sense in sinking to her level.
You're still deplorable for defending her words and seemingly agreeing with them, though.
Look ma, no swear words!
There's nothing puzzling about how insipid and cruel MM's posts have been of late
Insipid is debateable (RickM convinced me a couple weeks ago that I should read Jonah Goldberg's latest polemic, and now that I'm part way into it, I'm quite certain MM made a very bad call in criticizing it by superficial representation); but cruel? Come on, that's Rorschach talk.
If you have followed MM's blogging for any length of time, then you may recall that among the many other things that have occupied her wild career ride, she spent something like 30 months working some sort of O&M job at Ground Zero, where over three thousand people were quite literally pulverized, in many cases leaving behind nothing more recognizable than tiny bone fragments and organic mist. She also claims agnotheism as her metaphysical philosophy, FWIW, and has spent time abroad, including several trips to England (universal healthcare, increasingly rationed) and a month of travel in Vietnam (developing country still having widespread poverty and low healthcare and sanitation standards).
Going beyond the fact that two individuals never have quite the same reaction to death, maybe -- just maybe -- her normal reaction to the accidental death of a rich socialite and artist via multiple prescription drugs, is rather different than your normal reaction. I say "maybe" because I've never been accused of having an abnormally strong gift of Identifying With Others. Since you are in possession of such thing, I suggest putting it to good use here and seeing how far it takes you.
"wild speculation", nutella?
What part of what Megan said was speculation in any sense, let alone wild?
The report says what it says; it's not Megan speculating. That "the rich ... get better drugs"? At worst tongue-in-cheek. Not, however, a speculation, let alone a wild one.
That the list was impressive, that Ledger was successful, or that his job was demanding? At most, fairly simple and not particularly odd judgments, not speculation.
The worst one could possibly accuse Megan of with any basis here, is bad taste - and as such things go, this is on the level of using the wrong fork at a black-tie dinner.
(And, to the rest of us, part of being famous - and actors in modern Hollywood are famous and seek it out deliberately - is that when one makes terrible decisions that get one killed, like mixing what looks like a handful of pills and overdosing, it's fair to mention that one did so.
Especially in a way that suggests that it's not ordinary for someone who is young and successful to die in that way, with such a wide mix of drugs in their system.
[Note that there's no overtone, undertone, or sidetone of "he deserved it".]
I despise the playing of amateur-psychologist, as normally "too easy" and too likely to be unhelpful, but might a bit of problem here be that you have an emotional attachment to Mr. Ledger in some way that is distorting your perceptions?
I'm just not seeing the "cruelty". Being a celebrity means your death may be commented on. To point out that he overdosed is not cruel. To express surprise about the variety of drugs involved is also not cruel. Moving on, please.)
I hope everyone realizes that nutella and brad suffer from some kind of creepy paranoid obsession with Megan. They don't just attack her in comments here, they created a whole website devoted to attacking her. The internets do tend to attract a lot of crazies.
"The internets do tend to attract a lot of crazies."
Yes, it serves a safety valve for society. If the crazies are at their keyboards obsessively posting, they are unlikely to actually interact with the physical world and do harm to themselves or others. I'm all for the Second Amendment but bloggers should be denied concealed carry permits, categorically.
Sig, good job on the analysis, except I didn't know who Ledger was either until this crap happened. Why resort to speculating about my ulterior motives? What on earth makes it possible for you to even begin to think that you know me well enough to do that?
And I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about the cruelty thing. I agree that celebrities lives are open to scrutiny, but the only one who feel any effects from Ledger bashing are people close to him who by no means to chose to be famous. That's the cruel part. Again, I ask you to imagine yourself in the situation that a loved one died under questionable circumstances and, while you were still grieving, you came across a discussion about what an idiot he was being made by people who knew jack shit about the situation. Don't you think that'd upset you? Comparing this ot using the wrong fork is absurd. She's not failing to obey pointless rules of etiquette. She's being blatantly unsympathetic.
Anony, I have followed her work for a while. As I said, it's getting worse. I didn't mean it literally when I called her heartless, but was referring to the callous tone of many of her recent posts. I'v already admitted to being guilty of an immature response. That doesn't change the fact that she's been disrespectful to Ledger, by implication in this post and outrightly so in her last post, for no good reason. Lately she's also said things about Clinton that reflect nothing more than a personal bias and arguably sexism. She's even brought up the tired old "liberal media bias" bull that is so ludicrous I don't even know how to begin.
But, you know from reading Goldberg's book by now that, as I'm a liberal, I'm a fascist so we can just preemptively Godwin this thread to a close.
Enjoy the corpse bashing guys. It's an honorable trade.
Scentof Violets: _another_ psychiatrist acquaintance has told that there's simply not a lot of help you can give to most people. Some people who are depressed, clinically or not, have a very good reason to be, and no amount of treatment can make those root causes go away. The best you can do is prescribe a regimen that will deal with the pain...
I guess I'm old fashioned: when I see a man take to drink...sometimes that's the best possible thing he can do. In children, we would call it 'crying it out of your system.'
I think the important point to make here is that though, yes, drinking/drug use are coping mechanisms, there is a world of difference between CONstructive and DEstructive coping. You can't make the world of contributing factors disappear, but effective therapy and supportive interventions CAN help someone locate positive ways to handle unchanging problems.
No disrespect to your psychiatrist friend, but psychiatry is geared almost solely to the biological causes/effects of depression etc, and treats almost solely with meds. Whereas a good social worker might be able to help incorporate a psych diagnosis and/or meds with the bio-psycho-social elements (everything else that's going on) and find an organic, realistic, life-oriented way to help someone cope, without destroying their lives/the lives of their families.